Does physician remuneration improve advance care planning and end of life discussions in primary care?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is not known how remuneration for advance care planning and end of life issues (ACPEL) discussions influences physician practice. In Calgary, AB family physicians get remunerated for completing a comprehensive annual care plan proforma (CACP) with patients who have complex care needs. The CACP prompts the physician to ACPEL discussions, with a tickbox answer of yes, no or not applicable.. The local “goals of care designation” (GCD) policy communicates treatment intent, based on medically appropriate care and the patient's own goals. Although not part of the CACP, if discussing ACPEL, determining a GCD is often appropriate. From a practice of 4000, 59 patients were identified by searching all CACP billing codes submitted from April 1st, 2011 through September 30th. A retrospective notes analysis revealed the percentage of charts with the ACPEL question completed was 49%. Of those that were completed 17% had discussed ACPEL, 17% had not and 66% selected not applicable. Only 1 out of 59 patients had a GCD and that was not determined during their CACP. Despite being part of a defined, remunerated plan, ACPEL and GCD discussions are not occurring. This baseline data will inform interventions in an audit feedback cycle, including practice-based physician education and mentoring on facilitating ACP conversations and improved clinic processes to ensure patient access to ACP material and to attach GCD documentation to the CACP. In addition it suggests the need for more effective links between remuneration to ACPEL discussions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".